Thesis Correspondence I

 Haydn Playing

 Per Scriptum E. Wesley Reynolds
Soli Deo Gloria

As I approach the final year of my Master's work, I'd like to use this blog to open up my correspondence and notes with my adviser, Dr. _____. My thesis is on Jacobite, Scottish Highland, and Stuart dynastic pageantry and heraldry. I'll paraphrase my adviser's replies, and include my some of my original notes. Below is my first update this semester. I'm dealing with scholarship in this case, so wait for my discussions on original source material later.

Dear Dr. _____,

I have purchased the following books by Edward Corp:

The Stuarts in Italy, 1719-1766: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile
The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites
The Stuart Court in Rome: The Legacy of Exile
A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689-1718
The Jacobites at Urbino: An Exiled Court in Transition.

I am convinced that I need to read most of all his scholarship, though he has a turn for speculative cultural arguments with both annoys and fascinates me. On the whole of it, he seems mostly to be dealing with the Stuart dynasty apart from its more immediate political context in order to detail cultural connections which went beyond the cause to standard Continental European court protocols. I would like to see if such cultural attributes of the exiled Stuarts might shed more light on the Scottish Highland pageantry (which Corp almost ignores completely).

Here are some notes on all the journal scholarship I could get by Corp. Please forgive my constant use of the passive voice in these notes; I naturally think in the passive, a nasty habit really.

Wesley


Notes on The Exiled Court of James II and James III: A Centre of Italian Music in France, 1689-1712 by Edward T. Corp in the Journal of the Royal Musical Association, Vol. 120, No. 2 (1995).

Scholars have not studied the way of life of the exiled court until recently, because of a shortage of material and because Jacobities have not been considered important. (Like I said, it's a small field we're dealing with here.)

The exiled Stuart court witnessed the vital change in French tastes on high music from their own to a more Italian style (around 1689, after the French composer Jean-Baptiste Lully's death). Also, the Stuart court at St.-Germain was geographically situated near the two centers of French music Paris and the palace of Versailles. Three important discoveries regarding the history of the court music of the exiled Stuarts have been made. First, the Master of Music for the court has been discovered, one Italian composer Innocenzo Fede by name, and the relevant source material has been placed in the Stuart Papers (I just knew that source would be handy; I'm so glad I have it). Second, scholars have recognized that a list of Italian cantatas and sonatas used Fede for the court may be found in the Parisian seven volume collection Bibliothbque Nationale. Third, courtier and armature musician David Nairne's private diary has been found. From all this, Corp concludes that the Italian direction in music of the Stuart exile court influenced France's move towards Italian music in the 1690s.

Stuart court music included three departments: the Anglican Chapel Royal, the king's private singers and musicians known as “His Majesty's Private Musick,” and the ceremonial trumpeters and drummers. Also, the queen's Catholic chapel contains its own musicians. With James II's construction of a new chapel in Whitehall (before his exile), new musicians were hired and Fede was chosen as court maestri di cappella.  Fede preformed at the birth ceremonies of Prince James. The Stuart court along with Fede eventually transitioned into its exile after the defeat at the Boyne. Not one musician from Anglican Chapel and only one musician with the Private Musick fled to the Continent; of which formally the great Henry Purcell had been a part. Four out of sixteen trumpeters came over, and one kettledrummer. Gianbattista Cazale served as the king's Catholic chapel organist, Jacques Paisible played oboe. Rehiring of musicians was sporadic, but four more are known; the Bavarian Abraham Baumeister; Frenchman, violinist, and dancing-master Jean Faure; Scottish countertenor, composer, violinist, and lutenist John Abel; and finally tenor and bedchamber performer Thomas Heywood. Composers Gottfried Finger and Bartolomeo Bernardi from the Catholic chapel also probably worked for the exiled court. In addition, the Stuarts hired musicians from the town, and frequently kept freelance musicians busy with various projects, such that these musicians would have eventually depended on court performance as a regular portion of their income. (I think this fact very important from a cultural perspective. It not only puts the Stuart court in a position to change French court music, as Corp is arguing, but it further infers that the Stuarts created a pageantry of music all their own for the purpose of proving a Classical western Jacobite appeal. Perhaps this appeal becomes flavored with Highland culture during the revolts in Scotland... Something to hypothesize about.)

Among many of Corp's descriptions of where music was played, I especially noted the ballroom. I know for certain that balls were part of Prince Charles' “spell” during his march from Scotland to England. Corp explains that balls were held for birthdays regularly (did Prince Charles ever hold a birthday ball during his march, I wonder). Worthy of note, James II distanced himself from court ceremony, discouraged court music, and gave himself to religious devotion. Consequently after his death, music flourished during his son's exiled succession (who was recognized as James III by most of the Catholic world). David Nairne related that during the winter of 1702-1703, thirty concerts were preformed in twenty weeks (wow!). Seven balls were performed in eleven weeks during 1707 and six in seven weeks during 1708, just after the Scottish invasion (important for me). The theater at the Stuart court in St.-Germain was one of the finest in France, and Louis XIV had Lully's ballets performed there. James III began attending performances at Versailles. However, both the Stuart ambassadors to Rome favored Italian music. Italian church music performed at Whitehall before the exile had already been a favorite with Lord Melfort, and his ambassadorship to Rome in 1689 exposed him to the work of Carissimi at Saint Apolinare Church and countless other Italian secular and church works until his recall to St.-Germain in 1691. As the queen and some leading courtiers and musicians of James III's court were Italian, Corp argues that St.-Germain became an sort of Italian compliment to Versailles French culture. Even in art and architecture, the Stuart diplomatic opinion favored the Italian modes. Ambassador the Duke of Perth listened to cantatas and sonatas every night during his business with Cardinal Pietro, patron to the all important Arcangelo Corelli (cannot stress the importance of this, as Prince Charles' favorite piece to play was Corelli's Christmas Concerto). Perth concluded Corelli the greatest composer the world over. Corelli published his trio sonatas, dedicating the third to James III's uncle. The music brought back to Fede from Rome by Melfort and Perth collected in Bibliothbque Nationale links directly the music at St.-Germain with Roman influence (and perhaps a broader argument about Neo-Classical pageantry opens out at this point; I need dig a little bit more here). Corp concludes that this proves that Versailles musicians knew of the Italian influence.

Corp next builds a connection between the famous French Baroque composer Francois Couperin and the Italian taste at St.-Germain. Corp speculates that Couperin's friendships with Delalande (organist for the Stuarts) David Nairne would doubtlessly introduced him to the Italian music influence at St.-Germain. Interestingly, Couperin's musical style began to change towards the Italian from 1689 on, and he became the first Frenchmen ever to compose Italian trio sonatas.

Notes on The Musical Manuscripts of “Copiste Z”: David Nairne, Francois Couperin, and the Stuart Court at Saint-Germain-en-Laye by Edward Corp in the Revue de Musicologie, T. 84, No. 1 (1998).

Corp argues that Louis XIV's music copyist of the music in the Bibliothbque Nationale manuscript (marked as “Copiste Z”) copied the treble clef in a non-French script, implying that he was a foreigner. Corp then begins down a long trail of theorizing on the manuscript development, which was really difficult for me to follow without taking more time. However, the effect was that the David Nairne and “Copiste Z” manuscripts run into each other, or at least a connection with someone from St.-Germain exists, suggesting that French music transcription was influenced by the Italian tastes of the exiled Stuarts. Nairne has been further linked to Couperin through his exposure to Abbe Jossier's social circle, etc. (Corp seems to overkill his often inferential arguments). Corp concludes that if his theory is correct, he can give a specific list of the Italian and other various pieces performed at St.-Germain for the Stuart court; something he was unable to do in his previous article.

Notes on Music at the Stuart Court at Urbino. 1717-18 by Edward Corp in Music & Letters, Vol. 81, No. 3 (Aug. 2000).

Unbelievable; another speculative argument! The Stuarts briefly stayed in Urbino at the Palazzo Ducale in the Papal States from July 1717 to October 1718 after their dismissal from France. The king changed from the French style opera to the Italian opera. In Corp's own words: “This development... went beyond a simple question of musical taste. Moreover, it might also have been of significance for the career of Domenico Scarlatti.” With the Jacobite move to Italy, more Scottish than English courtiers moved with it, and their tastes ran with the new Italian styles that not even Corelli and Scarlatti had been using. His Scottish courtiers had oddly witnessed the Italian craze in the London operas from 1708-1715, and appreciated the Venice operas during their new exile. They convinced James III to get the Pope's permission to invite an opera company in Pesaro to Urbino. While at Palazzo Ducale in Urbino, the one entertainment for the Stuarts was music, because of the remote hilltop location. Eventually James III learned to agree with his new courtiers, and appreciate the Italian operatic form. Jacobite court taste in music also ran towards Vivaldi, Antonio Lotti, and Tomaco Albinoni. James III preferred Gasparini and Bononcini.(I thought this argument from Corp of particular weight to my course):

"James III's enthusiasm for Italian opera did not go unnoticed by those hoping for a Jacobite restoration. If the king had been restored in 1708, or even as late as 1716, he would almost certainly have attempted to introduce French opera at his court in England. Now that James had been converted to Italian opera, that would no longer have been the case: and the supremacy of Italian opera in London would have been assured. Of greater significance was the identity of the composer who would actually provide the Italian operas, since Handel (a German like George I) would have been unlikely to be favoured by a restored Stuart regime. Those composers whom James III had encountered in Italy, and particularly in Rome, were more likely to receive his patronage. Of them, Domenico Scarlatti was particularly well placed to benefit from a Jacobite restoration."

Scarlatti did eventually resign his post at St. Peter's and moved back to Lisbon after hearing that the 1719 Jacobite Rebellion had failed. Corp infers that Scarlatti might have moved to London if the 1719 revolt had ever succeeded.

Notes on Handel, Scarlatti and the Stuarts: A Response to David Hunter by Edward Corp in Music & Letters, Vol. 82, No. 4 (2001).

In this article, Corp is somewhat put off by the criticisms of David Hunter. Corp does however note that Hunter is correct about Handel and that Corp overgeneralized in his previous article (above). Rather than perceiving Handel as Hanoverian or German, he is more accurately described as possessing the same imperialistic taste as George I (which I cannot personally affirm or deny). However, Corp did reiterate that his argument primarily dealt with James III's conversion to Italian opera and rejection of his French court which impelled him to rely on faulty advisers and weakened the political movement in the 1720s (although I would interject that Corp's real emphasis was on the cultural implications for Scarlatti, rather than on the Jacobite political scene). Corp reiterates the speculative nature of his argument regarding Scarlatti, which Hunter misunderstood.

This was not one of Corp's most rational articles, although it did admit error when necessary. He characterizes Hunter's refutation as “What a big sledgehammer to crack such a little nut!” He writes further, “David Hunter refers to 'the animosity that exists even today concerning Jacobitism', and observes that 'hardly a year goes by without a debate or a sniping review' (n. 17). I think he is right.” Whatever Hunter wrote, Corp's demeanor did not seem the most appealing to me; in the words of Shakespeare “Sweet revenge grows harsh.” Or perhaps Corp's coffee was just too strong that morning.

Notes on Further Light on the Career of 'Captain' Francois de Prendcourt by Edward T. Corp in Music & Letters, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Feb., 1997).

Composer and keyboard player “Captain” Prendcourt was forced to provide for himself by teaching harpsichord after his dismissal from the Stuart Catholic Whitehall chapel in 1687-8 when James II escaped from England. Corp notes that the standard sources for Prendcourt come from Michael Tilmouth's The New Grove (scholarship), and John Wilson's version of Roger North's commentaries on music (North being a contemporary of Prendcourt). Prendcourt's music can be found in only one known original manuscript of harpsichord pieces now at York Minster. Corp argues from archives on the Bastille now in the Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal, Paris that Prendcourt did not stay in England after the Glorious Revolution as scholars have previously thought, but that instead he somehow was imprisoned at the Bastille. For some political reasons, North deliberately decided to keep that fact secret in his account of Prendcourt. Although Prendcourt was originally a Frenchman and had been to the Indies and Spain, he was possibly an ordained priest and probably a Spanish soldier in the 1670s-80s, but not a captain as he called himself. Beginning in 1686, he taught Latin, signing, and music at Whitehall as Master of the Children. North suggests that Prendcourt's pride and refusal to perform any work but his own put him at odds with other musicians at the chapel including the Chapel Master Fede, Gottfried Finger, James Paisible, and Bernardo Bernardi. He regarded all others, even the great Corelli as simply triflers. Prendcourt was dismissed just before William's invasion for “misconduct,” making a flight with the king quite impossible. Prendcourt decided to go to Ireland, hop back into his military career, and after meeting James II there managed to fall back into favor with the king. Prendcourt gained military governorship of the garrison at Armagh, and became along with the Charlemont garrison, the only remaining garrisons in the province to stand against William's armies after James II's withdraw to Ulster. Supposedly Prendcourt had converted to Protestantism while at Whitehall before converting back to Catholicism, and the French suspected him of treason in his new office. James II informed him that he would be honorably dismissed after first sending him to St.-Germain and Versailles to relay dispatches; a move which the French accepted with great reluctance. Prendcourt was then meant to be escorted safely to Germany by a French Secretary of State, but he instead decided to stay in France. He followed Louis XIV to Mauberge on an army inspection, and returned to Paris, changing his name and address. Eventually, he was arrested on suspicion of spying for William and imprisoned at the Bastille until October 1697 after the war's end. If Prendcourt ever did carry any music with him, it must have been destroyed at the Bastille. Prendcourt resided in the rue de la Tisseranderie after being released, near St.-Germain where he would have almost certainly listened to Couperin's organ playing. Prendcourt was not allowed to stay in France for long, and late in the year 1697, he was sent to Calais under military escort and then on to England.

Corp claims to now know why North hid Prendcourt's imprisonment. North himself was a Jacobite and worked secretly for Mary of Modena as her Attorney General, “As a convicted anti-Jacobite spy, Prendcourt was a rather unsuitable contact, and it would have been safer to suppress all reference to his imprisonment.” Furthermore, Corp also can claim rather convincingly that Prendcourt was not a Jesuit as North had believed him to be, for certainly the French archives would have referenced the fact if it were true. The French manuscript also confirms Tilmouth's argument that the York Minister manuscript contains Prendcourt's own work; the handwriting matches.

Notes on 'Captain' Prendcourt Revisited by [Roz Southey and] Edward T. Corp in Music & Letter, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Nov., 1998)

This article is really a correction of details. Roz Southey brings to bear the Corporation minutes from Newcastle upon Tyne for All Saints Church, Chamberlain's Accounts, and All Saints burial records to indicate that Prendcourt worked as an organist until his death on September 12, 1725. Corp readily accepts Southey's correction to his guess that Prendcourt may have died in the year 1707. Corp had no knowledge of Southey's sources, and only had North's 1707 account of Prendcourt written in the past tense, presumably as though he had died.

Notes on Maurice Quentin de La Tour's Portrait of Prince Charles Edward Stuart by Edward Corp in The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 139, No. 1130 (May, 1997).

The Scottish National Portrait Gallery acquired in 1994 a portrait which they claim to have been the lost portrait of Charles by Maruice Quentin de La Tour which was subsequently displayed in the Paris Salon in 1748. However, doubt surrounds the legitimacy of the portrait. Before the finding, the 1748 portrait's existence was only known through the copies and engravings of Michael Aubert. There are differences between the 1994 finding and the copies. For instance, the Prince is portrayed in the 1994 finding as having both the sash of the Order of the Garter and the jewel of the Order of the Thistle, whereas Aubert portrayed only the sash and not the gem. The absence of the star of the Garter on a fur cloak and discrepancies in ribbon placement are other difficulties with the newly discovered painting. Corp emphasizes that the heraldic insignias of Western Europe (Garter, Golden Fleece, and Saint-Esprit) were not considered compatible. Of course rarely was this ever a problem, but in the case of James II, the king found that the ribbons of the Garter and the Thistle crossed, interrupting the symbolism. The Garter hung from the left shoulder, while the Thistle fell from the left. Until 1716, James III was careful never to wear the Garter and the Thistle together, but then James decided to bring the orders together in a way that resembled Philip V in 1700. James suspended the Thistle jewel  from the neck on a ribbon turned green from red. The Garter sash crossed the ribbon just above the Thistle, as in the case of the Saint-Esprit, only on the reverse side. Prince Charles would have inherited this form of heraldic pageantry. However, in portrait painting the technique was to reverse the angle, making Prince Charles' heraldry too close to that of Saint-Esprit. Painters were instructed to simply paint the sash on its original side, but in several portraits of the Stuarts this correction to the technique was not always carried out, and the Garter sash is shown hanging on the right shoulder. Aubert made this mistake while copying Quentin de La Tour. To correct his mistake, Aubert put the sash lower, covering the Thistle and exposing its ribbon around the neck. Aubert had a new problem; his method brought Prince Charles ever closer the Saint-Esprit and Golden Fleece combination (well known in France). So, he invented a fur cloak in order to suspend the Garter. The other copies were corrections to the engraving, not the original portrait. Corp concludes, “But the implications of this analysis extend beyond this particular case study... James III once stated that he was not prepared to give the Garter to anyone who would not or could not wear it openly, and that as the leading French nobles all stood a chance of receiving the Saint-Esprit, he had decided never to give the Garter to any of them.” (There is much to think about the heraldic implications here, far beyond just the Stuart court, but into the Jacobite political and cultural movement. I've got to dig into his sources, and tie this to the British Isles.)